Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.
"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
2008 seems to have been a banner year for a certain type of poster.
That means that any definition of “natural born” is in the realm of discussion, doesn’t it, since the Constitution does not define it.
We do know that Congress has the power to make laws on the subject, though, so when they define who DOES need to be naturalized, they are defining who DOES NOT need it.
Those persons not needing naturalization are, apparently, already natural. They have been BORN automatically as citizens.
The courts were not given the authority in the Constitution. The Congress was.
Yes, apparently.
Waiting for the others to appear.
It’s a hybrid. That T. Rex is a liberal.
Please accept my heartfelt, but belated, thank you for the education and insights wrapped inside your posts here.
And also my humble thanks for the reminder to turn from the board once in a while and try to "see" the actual players. So easy to forget where we are in the story we were born into, while playing the game.
"anyone who claims to be in the Light
but hates his brother
is still living in the dark;"
1 John 2:9
No, historically that has not been the case at all.
Your citation simply acknowledges that someone had been naturalized, and that as naturalized they now had the same status as those born into citizenship with the EXCEPTION of the presidency.
Congress decreed who HAD TO BE naturalized. The others who didn’t were born automatic citizens.
If you don’t need to be naturalized, then you are already natural.
Now, where is the definition of “natural born” in the Constitution?
Great zot! ! :)
Then give me the section of the Constitution that provides the definition for “natural born”.
natural born was not your comment citizenship is in the
US Constitution
No enumerated power of Congress has granted Congress the power to grant natural born citizenship status. Senator Ted Cruz was granted status as a citizen of the United States “retroactive” to the date of birth pursuant to and conditional upon compliance with U.S. Naturalization laws that ARE an enumerated power of Congress. Congress has no power to revoke the U.S. citizenship of a natural born citizen for failure to comply with U.S. naturalization laws, but the U.S. citizenship of Senator Ted Cruz is subject to revocation in the event a court of competent jurisdiction were to bring a judgement that the application for U.S. citizzenship of the Canadian born person was in some way fraudulent or otherwise non-compliant with U.S. naturalization law. Hence, the U.S. citizenship status of Senator Ted Cruz does not conform to the inherently unrevocable citizenship of an actual natural born citizen, whose citizenship cannot be revoked by a court of law or by Congress.
“When Congress defines who does need to be naturalized, they are defining who does not need it”
And that is precisely what Ted Cruz claims about his citizenship. He did not need to be naturalized but was a citizen by birth through the citizenship of his mother.
I am flabbergasted at people who bog down in the weeds and see absolutely nothing wrong with the notion that it’s just fine and dandy to strip the rights of an American who gives birth beyond a border line from the baby she bears.
They actually believe the Founders intended that because a pregnant American crossed a border for a reasonable purpose and gives birth while over that line (not saying when the pregnancy occurred in this case, but their “reasoning” includes the notion that a woman shopping over the border who gives birth while there has her child’s rights stripped away), that her child is either not a citizen at all or is not “natural born” and can never be POTUS.
They are fine with that.
They really believe our genius Founders intended such a thing, and they will argue they intended it until they are blue in the face.
Never having the common sense to stop and ask themselves, whoah! Does that make ANY sense at all?
And that is the more human side of this “debate”.
You are serving as a legal, Constitutional scholar in the debate. I appreciate it xzins, believe me. Thank you.
But the lack of common sense, a sense of proportionality, a crediting of our Founders with having better sense than to visit such a punishment on Ted Cruz (and all the others) whose mothers who gave birth to them happened to be beyond a border when they were born??
Boggles my mind.
You said, “Those persons not needing naturalization are, apparently, already natural. They have been BORN automatically as citizens.”
It’s your use of the word “apparently” that should give us pause. That was accurate and honest language, and I respect and appreciate that very, very much. It’s an acknowledgement that what you’ve said is a logical inference not a clearly-stated legal fact.
It was “apparent” to us all that Obamacare was unconstitutional. The Obamacare ruling showed us that “apparently” isn’t good enough today. We need it written in stone, or these creepy critters will move the goalposts according to political expedience, like they did with Obamacare. And that is why I say we need to take the argument away from ourselves and put it to the courts. Like ALWAYS has to happen when there are legal arguments. Because how you and I infer things doesn’t matter one bit. How the courts have always inferred things before doesn’t matter one bit. Without a clear, unequivocal ruling there’s wiggle room for them to decide anything they want to decide. And that is what we need to protect ourselves from.
Does that make sense? Do you hear what I’m saying? I don’t know whose interpretation and inferences are right - meaning they match what the Founders meant at the time. But I do know that without a direct ruling SCOTUS becomes a bribe-able political weapon when somebody like Cruz threatens DC. We need to remove that weapon from Soros’ arsenal, before it is too late.
Nope.
It's called the Right of Election. No one was told they HAD TO BE anything, nor was there anything 'automatic' about it.
2. Aliens by election are all such natural born, or naturalized subjects of the crown of Great-Britain, as were born, or naturalized before the fourth day of July, 1776, and have not since become actual citizens of the United States;
[snip]
Aliens by election may then be shortly described to be those subjects of the crown of Great-Britain on the fourth day of July, 1776, who have elected to remain such, and have not since become, and continued to be, citizens of the United States, or some one of them.
St. George Tucker, (Annotated) Blackstone's Commentaries
A person had to appear before a legal authority renouncing his/her former Allegiance and take a loyalty Oath to the United States...or some one of them.
It is not in there. No definition of “natural born” is given in the Constitution. The only thing touching on it is Congress authority to establish a uniform naturalization and to make ALL laws they feel necessary to carry out the responsibility of naturalization.
That can include, by the authority given them, the power to decide who DOES NOT need to be naturalized.
Wanna bet?
That is nothing more than your personal viewpoint.
There is nothing “out there” that establishes it as legitimate Constitutional law or statutory law or even sound reason.
The bottom line is Ted Cruz did not have to be naturalized into being a citizen because he was a citizen by birth born to an American citizen mother which is established under what controlling authority there is and has not been dis-established or overturned.
And if you want to try riding this horse here, remember that JR has said he will not allow his site to become one that decends into that.
Because he believes and has so stated that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen as the son of a natural born citizen mother. And by natural born, meaning a citizen by birth and not having to be naturalized.
BORN a citizen.
Tell that to Congress and the U.S. courts, who ruled in the early 19th Century that the children of U.S. citizens born abroad did not inherit U.S. citizenship at all. A number of new Federal legislative acts had to be enacted by Congress to retroactively give these persons retroactive U.S. citizenship, which was acknowledged at the time to not be natural born citizenship. This means the child of American citizens could be retroactively granted U.S. citizenship from the date of birth, but the U.S. citizenship was not a natural born citizenship as stated by the American Law Review (~1850 IIRC).
“That is nothing more than your personal viewpoint.”
That is a false accusation. It was the statements of an American Law Review article supposedly authored by the same legal scholar Chief Justice Gray relied upon in his fraudulent Wong Kim Ark decision.
Would you be opposed to a court ruling in which the original meaning of “natural born citizen” was interpreted and clearly stated so that everybody knows what the legally binding definition is and the goalpost cannot be moved depending on whose eligibility is being challenged at the time?
This is interesting to me because it directly impacts Obama's eligibility. (As has been pointed out already of course)
But I've been (silently) following the issue as it pops up in threads here and there and for me, it's remained an open question as to whether or not Obama really was/is eligible. There just didn't seem to be enough evidence to say either way, at least here on FR if not the "world" at large.
However now, it seems to me this statement you made can and probably should put the question of Obama's eligibility to rest. For two reasons:
1. Now the issue about whether or not he was born on American soil becomes moot as no one questions he was born to one US citizen. So...
2. If we can now say that there exists no prerequisite to two citizen parents to confer "natural born status", then Obama is/was eligible.
This presupposes agreement on these two points from every "birther"; a brief reading of the thread seems to indicate there are still some who insist both parents be citizens. If this is the case however, there is no way Cruz can be eligible either.
I guess I'm also saying I'm sensing a storm brewing on the horizon should Cruz elect to run in 2016.
I hope that doesn't make me a concern troll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.